Dutch parliament passes Europe’s first net neutrality law

After a major wireless carrier tried to start charging extra for certain …

Last week, the Dutch parliament passed a wide-ranging network neutrality bill that attempts to bring the country's largest wireless operator to heel. If it clears the Senate as expected, the Dutch proposal will become the first such law adopted in Europe.

Incumbent telco KPN, now privatized, announced earlier this year a new plan to rebuild slumping revenues from voice calls and text messaging: charge more to users of Internet VoIP services and instant messaging apps. To make the scheme work, KPN would use deep packet inspection to monitor and classify all subscriber Internet traffic, singling out the protocols or apps it chose and billing more for those bits.

The audacious scheme went too far even for Europe, which has long prided itself on using ISP competition—rather than regulation—as the main way to prevent abuse. Maxime Verhagen, the Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation, quickly announced in parliament a plan to ban the practice, and parliament approved the ban last week.

Hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:

a. to minimize the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;

b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;

c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as refered to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;

d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order.

The bill also demands that ISPs not "make the price of the rates for Internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services."

"This is because of the needed investments in the network and the decline in voice and SMS traffic," said Verhagen's office when the bill was introduced. "Minister Verhagen isn’t against paying for the quantity or the speed of the data traffic. The Cabinet, however, is of the opinion that a surcharge on specific services like Skype or WhatsApp goes too far."

The bill still requires some technical changes—the Dutch Labour party managed to "accidentally" vote on an amendment that allowed users to request blocking of site on their own connections for ideological or religious reasons. Members apparently believe that the amendment could provide some kind of loophole for ISPs and they wish to reverse the vote. The amendment seems to have been drafted so that ISPs can filter pornography and other objectionable content at subscriber request; without the amendment, it would appear that only local, end-user filtering programs would be allowed.

Bits of Freedom hopes that the bill will enter into force by the end of the year.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

Didn't you read the article? KPN was recently privatized; the measures to introduce 'competition' was exactly what caused the problem. Their behavior when they were a public monopoly was just fine.

Net neutrality laws are not a temporary solution; laws like this should be the permanent baseline of the entire industry. If you are looking for a structural solution, though, everything about this case suggests public-sector management would be it.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

The PvdA was the party who pushed this legislation, putting accidental between quotes implies their mistake was deliberate. Tomorrow the parliament will vote on the reversal, which should easily get a majority if they do it right this time.

Forgive me as I play devil's advocate here for a moment on behalf of KPN. To be clear, I despise most of the carriers and hope they burn in hell.

There is an enormous amount we don't know about the structure of KPN's pricing and expenses (or any other Telco's for that matter). Consider the following fictional company:

1) XYZ Inc. has a voice only network. Running this service costs $35 per customer, covering the cost of fixed infrastructure - they charge $45 and walk away with $10 profit.

2) To meet market demand, XYZ upgrades their service to include data. The cost of providing data is $10, bringing the total cost up to $45/user. They charge $15 for this service, offering voice+data for a total of $60 ($15 profit).

This example is terribly over-simplified, but illustrates the point well enough. With the introduction of VoIP, the user can now drop their voice plan and cover both under their data for $15. This is below the cost of servicing the customer. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case for KPN, or any other telecom company for that matter - I'm just suggesting:

- The cost of wireless services is primarily in fixed infrastructure

- These fixed costs are built into their pricing scheme

- The cost of operating voice/data vs data only is not proportional to their pricing of voice/data vs data only.

I guess the point of my rant here is that while I have no doubt this company was trying to get more money, I don't think the cost of your or my data package is enough to cover the fixed cost of maintaining the network. Obviously we (or I) don't have most of the information.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

While I agree that should be a goal, that should only be one tool in the belt, not the be-all end-all. For one, competition would take quite a while to show up, and in that time, anti-neutral practices could have taken root. Secondly, there are many places, especially rural ones, where competition just won't work; these locations could only realistically support one ISP. If competition is the main driver in ensuring net neutrality, what happens to those people? Should they just be forgotten; doomed to suffer whatever their lone ISP will burden them with? A healthy amount of regulation would still be needed to keep those ISPs in check.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

Natural monopolies should be regulated and then broken up if they are breaking laws. Not just "Oh well you're doing nothing wrong but have a lot of marketshare we're breaking you up." I sure as hell wouldn't want to start up in a country like that.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

Didn't you read the article? KPN was recently privatized; the measures to introduce 'competition' was exactly what caused the problem. Their behavior when they were a public monopoly was just fine.

Net neutrality laws are not a temporary solution; laws like this should be the permanent baseline of the entire industry. If you are looking for a structural solution, though, everything about this case suggests public-sector management would be it.

I think a large part of the problem was that it wasn't actual competition, but the corporate definition of "competition", where the utility would be privatized, but still not have any real competition for it's services. In other words, private profits with social losses.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

If they get to the point where that is needed, then fuck them. Perhaps keeping the type of people who would get that company to the point where they need to be broken up would be better for everyone.

Forgive me as I play devil's advocate here for a moment on behalf of KPN. To be clear, I despise most of the carriers and hope they burn in hell.

There is an enormous amount we don't know about the structure of KPN's pricing and expenses (or any other Telco's for that matter).

I really don't care. If they can't compete, then they can't compete. Isn't that what the "Free Market" is all about?

Quote:

Consider the following fictional company:

1) XYZ Inc. has a voice only network. Running this service costs $35 per customer, covering the cost of fixed infrastructure - they charge $45 and walk away with $10 profit.

2) To meet market demand, XYZ upgrades their service to include data. The cost of providing data is $10, bringing the total cost up to $45/user. They charge $15 for this service, offering voice+data for a total of $60 ($15 profit).

This example is terribly over-simplified, but illustrates the point well enough. With the introduction of VoIP, the user can now drop their voice plan and cover both under their data for $15. This is below the cost of servicing the customer.

Not my problem. It's THEIR burden to make sure they can service the customer, not mine to make sure i am a profitable one.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

If they're getting broken up, then they are definitely doing something wrong.

Forgive me as I play devil's advocate here for a moment on behalf of KPN. To be clear, I despise most of the carriers and hope they burn in hell.

Devil's advocate indeed. These companies (KPN, Vodafone) have been secretly monitoring their customers' every move by means of deep packet inspection for the purpose of finding out what best to filter. They also rake in insane profits, with KPN spending billions the past years on repurchasing shares.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

While I agree that should be a goal, that should only be one tool in the belt, not the be-all end-all. For one, competition would take quite a while to show up, and in that time, anti-neutral practices could have taken root. Secondly, there are many places, especially rural ones, where competition just won't work; these locations could only realistically support one ISP. If competition is the main driver in ensuring net neutrality, what happens to those people? Should they just be forgotten; doomed to suffer whatever their lone ISP will burden them with? A healthy amount of regulation would still be needed to keep those ISPs in check.

Why would that be the ultimate goal? Some regulation is required in certain industries. Gametheory predicts this, as does standard economic theory.You wil NEVER have enough Telco's to have perfect competition (in fact, I know of no market that satisfies the conditions to really be called that.)

Some industries need regulation by definition. (Health) insurance is one of them, telecom is another. That's not an ideological debate, public finance theorems and game theory prove it. The level of competition in the Netherlands is actually pretty good compared to the US. However, SMS is still the most expensive data you can buy. Competition doesn't guarantee anything if it isn't perfect, and this market is far far from it.

@Dureas: This is not intended to make up for increased costs. SMS traffic (pure profit) has been falling rapidly. This is what they are trying to adjust for. It's a matter of keeping profits up. In fact, in perfect competition, they would not even be making a profit.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

If they're getting broken up, then they are definitely doing something wrong.

What has KPN done wrong legally to warrant a break up? Until now what they we're doing was technically legal. Legislation was put in place and the issue is resolved. A break up isn't warranted here.

The other issue is interests in competing in an area. If no one has interest in competing than they have no interest as simple as that. Barring if a telco purposely makes it impossible to get things going by lobbying against plans to set up towers etc then it is not their fault that they don't have competitors but considering just in the US market where we have regional competitors like MetroPCS with nationwide networks based off roaming agreements with Sprint, Verizon and friends. There is no warrant for a break up atleast in the US. The only US telco that has even done anything to warrant a breakup is AT&T for getting all the Bell's back together.

On another note I would love to see telco's cross border lines.

For example US telco's competing with Canadian telco's and vice versa but due to different regulating bodies I can see how this would be hard.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

Natural monopolies should be regulated and then broken up if they are breaking laws. Not just "Oh well you're doing nothing wrong but have a lot of marketshare we're breaking you up." I sure as hell wouldn't want to start up in a country like that.

I have a 30 euro/month subscription with unlimited internet. Who's getting the raw end of the deal here?

If you can make a good profit, a corporation would definitely enter a market like that. The good of the corporation does not preceed the good of the consumer. This will not deter any rational company from entering. More to your liking perhaps is the argument that a lot of monopolies like this started as government owned companies, which had an unfair advantage or even the only license to roll out services.

This should be viewed as a temporary solution to restrain telco monopolies... The ultimate solution should be to ensure a healthy amount of telco/isp competition and break up these damned monopolies/duopolies.

While I agree that should be a goal, that should only be one tool in the belt, not the be-all end-all. For one, competition would take quite a while to show up, and in that time, anti-neutral practices could have taken root. Secondly, there are many places, especially rural ones, where competition just won't work; these locations could only realistically support one ISP. If competition is the main driver in ensuring net neutrality, what happens to those people? Should they just be forgotten; doomed to suffer whatever their lone ISP will burden them with? A healthy amount of regulation would still be needed to keep those ISPs in check.

Why would that be the ultimate goal? Some regulation is required in certain industries. Gametheory predicts this, as does standard economic theory.You wil NEVER have enough Telco's to have perfect competition (in fact, I know of no market that satisfies the conditions to really be called that.)

Some industries need regulation by definition. (Health) insurance is one of them, telecom is another. That's not an ideological debate, public finance theorems and game theory prove it. The level of competition in the Netherlands is actually pretty good compared to the US. However, SMS is still the most expensive data you can buy. Competition doesn't guarantee anything if it isn't perfect, and this market is far far from it.

@Dureas: This is not intended to make up for increased costs. SMS traffic (pure profit) has been falling rapidly. This is what they are trying to adjust for. It's a matter of keeping profits up. In fact, in perfect competition, they would not even be making a profit.

You didn't read my comment, did you? I said that increased competition should be A GOAL, not THE GOAL. I even pointed out some instances in which competition would not be enough, probably because there would not be any. Competition is good, and we should encourage it, but we should not be so foolish as to think that competition alone would bring about the changes we want.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

If they're getting broken up, then they are definitely doing something wrong.

What has KPN done wrong legally to warrant a break up?

I would say banning access to the SMS application would definitely qualify, especially under these new rules. Just because it might have been technically legal yesterday doesn't mean it should stay that way.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

Natural monopolies should be regulated and then broken up if they are breaking laws. Not just "Oh well you're doing nothing wrong but have a lot of marketshare we're breaking you up." I sure as hell wouldn't want to start up in a country like that.

If it's an actual natural monopoly there will be no new entrants, and you pretty much can't break it up.*

I find it hard to believe that startups are going to take into account the "unfair" way the state treats corporate behemoths. It's a problem so far down the road as to not be a consideration at all. And a problem they'd love to have, because if they get to that point, they're already filthy stinking rich.

Incidentally, when it comes to telecommunications and the internet startups are more likely to worry about having the rug pulled out from under them or being shaken down by said corporate behemoth.

Corporations aren't people. It's ok to be mean to them if it's in the public interest. They don't have feelings to hurt.

*edit : Probably in this case only part of the company's operation is a natural monopoly. What is possible, and has been done in some places, is to separate out that part (generally the physical infrastructure).

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

Natural monopolies should be regulated and then broken up if they are breaking laws. Not just "Oh well you're doing nothing wrong but have a lot of marketshare we're breaking you up." I sure as hell wouldn't want to start up in a country like that.

If it's an actual natural monopoly there will be no new entrants, and you pretty much can't break it up.

I find it hard to believe that startups are going to take into account the "unfair" way the state treats corporate behemoths. It's a problem so far down the road as to not be a consideration at all. And a problem they'd love to have, because if they get to that point, they're already filthy stinking rich.

Incidentally, when it comes to telecommunications and the internet startups are more likely to worry about having the rug pulled out from under them or being shaken down by said corporate behemoth.

Corporations aren't people. It's ok to be mean to them if it's in the public interest. They don't have feelings to hurt.

Start ups don't take regulatory factors into the equation?Then tell me why do most of worlds greatest multinational start ups choose to take roots in the US? Where regulation isn't used unless absolutely necessary?

I think you misunderestimate how much a legal landscape has an effect on companies.

Don't get me wrong I believe in regulation and breaking up as necessary but I also believe there must be guidelines for it. Not just willy nilly with no basis.

Yeah that'll promote new start ups in your country break them up for breaking future laws and getting big legally. Makes sense! /s

Ever heard of the term natural monopoly or oligopoly?

Yes I have point still remains if these companies are doing nothing wrong then you're effectively breaking them up for no reason which sets a bad precedent for any groundbreaking company to set up shop in your country.

Natural monopolies should be regulated and then broken up if they are breaking laws. Not just "Oh well you're doing nothing wrong but have a lot of marketshare we're breaking you up." I sure as hell wouldn't want to start up in a country like that.

If it's an actual natural monopoly there will be no new entrants, and you pretty much can't break it up.

I find it hard to believe that startups are going to take into account the "unfair" way the state treats corporate behemoths. It's a problem so far down the road as to not be a consideration at all. And a problem they'd love to have, because if they get to that point, they're already filthy stinking rich.

Incidentally, when it comes to telecommunications and the internet startups are more likely to worry about having the rug pulled out from under them or being shaken down by said corporate behemoth.

Corporations aren't people. It's ok to be mean to them if it's in the public interest. They don't have feelings to hurt.

Start ups don't take regulatory factors into the equation?Then tell me why do most of worlds greatest multinational start ups choose to take roots in the US? Where regulation isn't used unless absolutely necessary?

Because we have a wealth of talent here, along with strong IP protections? There are many other reasons to start in the US as opposed to Elbonia.

Also, I would say that we don't just use it unless it's absolutely necessary, we wait even longer, until it's far too late.

Start ups don't take regulatory factors into the equation?Then tell me why do most of worlds greatest multinational start ups choose to take roots in the US? Where regulation isn't used unless absolutely necessary?

Culture, really. America still has something of a frontier culture. There is a great deal of emphasis on individual achievement, individual success and above all else, individual independence.

Starting your own company is practically a rite of passage in American culture – to the point that in many cases corporations are considered more “people” than flesh-and-blood citizens. (Corporations for example have most of the rights and very few of the liabilities of flesh-and-blood citizens.)

Your tax structure is heavily biased towards corporations. Pay some attention to capital gains tax, corporate tax and personal taxes, then do your contrast and compare. It is far more profitable as an individual to work as a consultant and pay yourself the smallest possible salary. You invest everything through the company, dodge taxes with writeoffs and invest more. When the time comes to retire – or you need a little dough – you take the money out of the company (“dividend” or “bonus”) and pay next to nothing in capital gains if you have the slightest clue what you are doing.

So startups are concentrated in the US primarily because US culture damned near demands it. People who go to the US for education from abroad are saturated in this culture. People raised there are under pressure their entire lives.

When you step out of American culture, you find that other cultures don’t place the same value on the same things as Americnas. I know, this is difficult to believe. Americans are taught from brith to believe the people are largely the same, everywhere. The only reason they aren’t all like Americans is something “evil” holding them back.

Well that’s complete horseshit. There are lots of cultures in the world where people actually don’t give a damn about money, beyond having enough to live. IF they can go to the local chaebol, work 8 hours a day and bring home enough for the basics, they are happy.

Their cultures are oriented so that they don’t have to worry about “saving for retirement.” Some places have a social commitment to caring for the elderly. In some places, family means a lot more to individuals than Americans can even comprehend. 3, 4 or even 5 generations live in the same house, not because there isn’t money enough to buy more living space, but because family is so important that there is a strong incentive to keep them close.

Americans have a terrible time understanding all of this. Cultures around the world are simply different. Even in cultures where people value money as much as in the US, ideas about how best to get it are often entirely different. To many, the idea of starting one’s own business simply doesn’t occur to them. They are taught from birth that you work at “the company,” and if you work hard you will be rewarded for such. In some cases that’s even true! (Shock!)

So why are startups disproportionately American? Because Americans care way more about such things. The rest of the world – by and large – have better things to worry about.

While I like the short-term benefit of using whatsapp and skype to replace sms and voice on the cheap, I do fear the longer-term effect of an increase in overall price structure to make up for the company's decrease revenue, diminishing capital (infrastructure growth), less potential options to customize only for services I use, and more barriers to entry caused by added regulations to the industry. Perhaps a start-up that would have tried to sell cheap data at throttled prices will now never spring up.

Forgive me as I play devil's advocate here for a moment on behalf of KPN. To be clear, I despise most of the carriers and hope they burn in hell.

There is an enormous amount we don't know about the structure of KPN's pricing and expenses (or any other Telco's for that matter). Consider the following fictional company:

1) XYZ Inc. has a voice only network. Running this service costs $35 per customer, covering the cost of fixed infrastructure - they charge $45 and walk away with $10 profit.

2) To meet market demand, XYZ upgrades their service to include data. The cost of providing data is $10, bringing the total cost up to $45/user. They charge $15 for this service, offering voice+data for a total of $60 ($15 profit).

This example is terribly over-simplified, but illustrates the point well enough. With the introduction of VoIP, the user can now drop their voice plan and cover both under their data for $15. This is below the cost of servicing the customer. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case for KPN, or any other telecom company for that matter - I'm just suggesting:

- The cost of wireless services is primarily in fixed infrastructure

- These fixed costs are built into their pricing scheme

- The cost of operating voice/data vs data only is not proportional to their pricing of voice/data vs data only.

I guess the point of my rant here is that while I have no doubt this company was trying to get more money, I don't think the cost of your or my data package is enough to cover the fixed cost of maintaining the network. Obviously we (or I) don't have most of the information.

While you make some good point, some of the others make it a very good thing what you think is not what is.

If the cost of running voice services is X, adding data to voice is X+Y, and X>Y, and someone chooses VoiP and goes with data only, the fact that they're making less money and cannot maintain their voice service business is not the consumer's problem, or the government's for that matter. In fact, the capitalism that these very companies try to say they value says they _should_ die out. As it stands now, in the name of the free market and capitalism, telecoms are attempting to use anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices, to force out the competition that threatens their old business model. They're knowingly and willfully holding back the industry, to protect their income stream, rather than evolving with the times. No one paying for your analog voice package anymore? Get with the times and offer a VoiP service over the data connection at competitive rates.

As to your assertion that the costs on data-only packages are not proportional, that's just bollocks. There have been a good number of beautiful examples of extremely high-bandwidth packages, for very reasonable prices (in many cases, for the same or lower price as a small fraction of the speed by another carrier; the example I love most was an 8Mb/s connection costing US$80 in the US, if you could even find a connection that fast, and had tons of restrictions, caps, and other limitations, while at the same time in Sweden US$80 would buy you 100Mb/s without any usage restrictions.) Google's doing it in Kansas City. Sonic is doing it in that one area in California. Municipal providers are doing it more and more all over the country, where they aren't being crushed by the profiteering, price gouging telecoms that spend money on lobbyists instead of infrastructure (never mind that the government itself has given out hundreds of billions of dollars to _pay_ for that infrastructure, and yet they had reached less than 4% of the goal by the 2006 deadline, had the audacity to ask for more time and money, then got it, and the money went straight into their pockets like the first batch did.)

Bottom line, and what matters, is that being unable to provide voice services at a reasonable rate is not a justification to force out the new, superior offerings. What it is, is a very clear statement that their old business model is no longer relevant, is obsolete, and needs to go, in favor of the new technologies such as VoiP. To be perfectly realistic, who even has a land-line phone anymore, unless your only internet option in your area is DSL? I used Skype for years as my landline because the price was far more reasonable, the service quality was equal or better, and because 99% of the time I wouldn't even use it, because I have a mobile. This is the norm today. Just like the RIAA and MPAA need to figure out how to cope _properly_ in the new world and economy, so too do the aging telecoms, and if they can't figure out a _legitimate_ way to stay competitive, they need to die off, not do everything possible to hold back entire industries (and in the case of the net, _every_ industry) and technologies. Hell, thanks to these scumbags, the country that literally invented the internet (the USA) is ranked 16th in the world, and falling.

Ever think we need a group of "real" intrenet everyday users to run buisness on the net. Seems only people intrested in the net is the people who make money !

No I am not a hacker, just someone that wants the intrenet as unrestrained as possable. I should pay a lot less than I am today, and get a whole lot more.... Damm you AT&T ! ! !

Yeah, about that price and net neutrality, the first telco (Vodafone NL) has already announced an end to unlimited data packages and low price mobile internet in the Netherlands as a result of the new laws.

The PvdA was the party who pushed this legislation, putting accidental between quotes implies their mistake was deliberate. Tomorrow the parliament will vote on the reversal, which should easily get a majority if they do it right this time.

Don't believe everything the official PR-person of the minister says! The current (right-wing) government is very much focused on the US and drools on the American emphasis on 'own responsibility'.

The net neutrality was demanded by the opposition parties (mostly left-wing and centre, communist socialists according to Fox News) and supported by anti-Islam party PVV. Only then did the minister add this to the new telco act and now he apparently claims it is doing...